I have to look up who Arpaio and Brewer are. Maybe they shouldn't get stifled. If they are, that might win Latinos, but lose Conservatives. Reviewing.

Joe Arpaio was the sheriff who threatened to not allow Obama on the ticket until he released his birth certificate (because obviously a sheriff has that authority), and he recieved a complaint from the Department of Justice investigating some terribly racist emails he sent and received, mostly regarding his policy of encouraging racial profiling.

In other news, he extended his jail by making a "tent city" in what is basically a desert nearby, which he himself described as a "concentration camp." He's been investigated for everything from feeding prisoners moldy food, to ignoring sex crimes, to keeping prisoners in unconstitutional conditions, and misusing funds. He's pretty sick no matter how you look at him.

And to quote myself from page 1 on Jan Brewer:

These people exist in more places than you think, and there are politicians who enable them. Just look at the governor of Arizona. She took $10 million given to her state by the federal government to be mostly used for education and put it all into border security. She made stories up about beheaded bodies in the desert to try and stir up fear about cartels and illegal immigrants. She issued an executive order to override and deny the privileges that were supposed to be given to young illegal immigrants under Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, including driver and non-driver's licenses and certain public resources including government-subsidized child care, healthcare, unemployment, business licenses, and government contracts.

Also, I have yet to hear an idea from a Republican that doesn't have to do with deporting everyone who is found and building a bigger wall. I would call being "reasonable" about the situation talking about a realistic way to deal with the illegals who are here. Because as I said before sending the children who have been here since infancy back would be like sending any other kid who grew up in America to Mexico--they would have no connections and wouldn't know a thing about living there.

The big question that needs to be asked is why are so many people taking the illegal route when there's a legal one? A couple of possible answers to that is the exorbitant cost of emigrating (upwards of $15,000) or the 50,000 person per year limit. Perhaps if these things were looked into and changed, or at least made more reasonable, then fewer people would risk coming over with cartels. The Democrats may not be investigating this angle carefully either, but at least they're trying with things like the DREAM act and such. They're at least trying to pretend the situation is more complicated than building a fence like we're trying to keep out rats.

Gorfias:I'm with Ann thinking Rubio's Amnesty plan is not a Conservatives best hope for 2016. Lilani appears to think differently...

And what about the amnesty? Should there be an amnesty plan, or should political loyalty be the criterium to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't?

Two questions:1) Should there be an Amnesty plan? I say no, but, according to Chuck, it is going to happen.2) Should how someone will vote affect who you let in the country in the first place? I would write yes. When gauging whether someone should be allowed into your country or not, you should weigh what would make them a good USA citizen or not. If, for instance, they were an Anarchist that believes in bombing government buildings and shooting police officers, I think you'd have every right to oppose their entry into your country. I personally do have a political loyalty that opposes bring in people to my country that want to shoot policemen, for instance. I extend this to, do I think they will move here and use political clout to "redistribute' wealth from people that earned it in this country to those that aren't even originally from here.

I have yet to hear an idea from a Republican that doesn't have to do with deporting everyone who is found and building a bigger wall.

While that would be my solution, the Link I gave you from Chuck is, Rubio and McCain types, they at least want Conservatives thinking they're for building the bigger wall, and ONLY then, have an amnesty. While I'm against this too, it is better than Amenesty and then maybe do some policing later. Maybe. The link, I think, also says Reagan get suckered this way: Amnesty first for a few million illegals, no real enforcement happened after that, and now we may be up to as many as 30 million.

Gorfias:I'm with Ann thinking Rubio's Amnesty plan is not a Conservatives best hope for 2016. Lilani appears to think differently...

And what about the amnesty? Should there be an amnesty plan, or should political loyalty be the criterium to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't?

Two questions:1) Should there be an Amnesty plan? I say no, but, according to Chuck, it is going to happen.

I just think it's the only feasible way to deal with the problem. Trying to track down and ship out upwards of 12 million undocumented people? You'd have to be crazy to think you could even begin to whittle down those numbers, without draconian investigation and policing. Unless things get better in Mexico sometime soon, the very idea of it is rather like trying to use a dixie cup to bail out the Titanic.

2) Should how someone will vote affect who you let in the country in the first place? I would write yes. When gauging whether someone should be allowed into your country or not, you should weigh what would make them a good USA citizen or not. If, for instance, they were an Anarchist that believes in bombing government buildings and shooting police officers, I think you'd have every right to oppose their entry into your country. I personally do have a political loyalty that opposes bring in people to my country that want to shoot policemen, for instance. I extend this to, do I think they will move here and use political clout to "redistribute' wealth from people that earned it in this country to those that aren't even originally from here.

But here's the thing. It's not a matter of "letting them in the country." They're already here. And they're still coming over. Whether you like it or not, they're here and here to stay. This is a matter of fact. It's not a matter of whether or not we let them in or out, it's a matter of what do we do with them now that they're here. Because again, trying to ship them out would be an insurmountable task. They're here, and they're taking lower wage jobs. At this point it's a matter of do we want to just let them become citizens and work them into the system, or letting them continue to be an unknown factor.

And again, the Republicans don't have to be the enemy here. If they denounce people like Arpaio and Brewer more often and work on more reasonable approaches, they can shake off this racist stigma and take away the barrier standing between them and the millions of socially conservative Latinos. Which, believe it or not, there are many of. And even then, when you're talking about the lives of millions of people, if you aren't willing to put petty politics aside I don't think your mind is clear enough to be approaching the subject. That is never an excuse, and the very thought of playing such games with something like this is just sickening.

While that would be my solution, the Link I gave you from Chuck is, Rubio and McCain types, they at least want Conservatives thinking they're for building the bigger wall, and ONLY then, have an amnesty. While I'm against this too, it is better than Amenesty and then maybe do some policing later. Maybe. The link, I think, also says Reagan get suckered this way: Amnesty first for a few million illegals, no real enforcement happened after that, and now we may be up to as many as 30 million.

People aren't coming over because they "can," they're coming over because the US legal emigration policies are so strict and things are so bad in Mexico that they are willing to put they and their family's lives in the hands of drug cartels to get here. It would be a lot cheaper and a lot more diplomatic to work with them and open a legitimate route, rather than continuing to give the cartels another method of making money. A wall will not solve the problem, it will only make the cartels more creative, just as the war on drugs only made them more creative in what drugs they brew and how.

Marco Rubio isn't appealing to conservatives or liberals right now. Treating immigrants in a semi-humane manner is great, but as long as those not-so-reasonable Republicans keep shouting "amnesty," he's going to have a problem. Meanwhile he voted against the new VAWA because it helped Native American women too much. Because he doesn't want Native Americans to be able to prosecute non-Native men who come onto their land and assault their people.

Not only are we continuously screwing Native Americans, let's not forget that the reason things are so terrible in Mexico is due to the absolute perpetual failure of our "war on drugs." So if we have an immigrant problem, we can point the finger straight at ourselves. Should we really be sending these people back into a hell that we created for them?

Sonofadiddly:Because he doesn't want Native Americans to be able to prosecute non-Native men who come onto their land and assault their people.

Assault is a crime regardless of location because it's part of US common law so I doubt that's an accurate reflection of the story. Not even republicans would go "Assault is a crime. Now let's go make another additional law which makes assault a crime".

Unless I really missed something and there's an exception in the definition of assault that says 'but wait, if someone beats up an indian it's not assault', but I doubt that.

Sonofadiddly:Because he doesn't want Native Americans to be able to prosecute non-Native men who come onto their land and assault their people.

Assault is a crime regardless of location because it's part of US common law so I doubt that's an accurate reflection of the story. Not even republicans would go "Assault is a crime. Now let's go make another additional law which makes assault a crime".

Unless I really missed something and there's an exception in the definition of assault that says 'but wait, if someone beats up an indian it's not assault', but I doubt that.

That would work if the reservations are part of the regular US. They are not, they have something called "tribal sovereignty", which means they are essentially their own countries with their own governments and laws (to an extent, at least).

I think some article said that if he run as VP he may have won, due to the Hispanic vote, but I forgot where the article is at. I pefer Rand Paul thro. As for the Social Conservative fringe I am not part of them, but I would say most conservatives just want small government, and lower government spending which was what Bush run for even thro he double the government size. Rubio may or may not keep his word, as he has stated to keep core republican belif.

2) Should how someone will vote affect who you let in the country in the first place? I would write yes. When gauging whether someone should be allowed into your country or not, you should weigh what would make them a good USA citizen or not. If, for instance, they were an Anarchist that believes in bombing government buildings and shooting police officers, I think you'd have every right to oppose their entry into your country. I personally do have a political loyalty that opposes bring in people to my country that want to shoot policemen, for instance. I extend this to, do I think they will move here and use political clout to "redistribute' wealth from people that earned it in this country to those that aren't even originally from here.

Nobody and I mean nobody thinks we need people here that will shoot people or are anarchists especially people that are citizens.

"According to the framework of the plan released by the bipartisan group, illegal immigrants will be required to register with the government. "This will include passing a background check and settling their debt to society by paying a fine and back taxes, in order to earn probationary legal status, which will allow them to live and work legally in the United States," the plan states. Those on probationary status will not be able to access federal public benefits."

The important part in that paragraph is background check. In that background check it will more than likely exclude known terrorists and will definitely exclude violent offenders whether they crime was committed here or in Mexico if I had a guess.

BreakfastMan:That would work if the reservations are part of the regular US. They are not, they have something called "tribal sovereignty", which means they are essentially their own countries with their own governments and laws (to an extent, at least).

So that bill will have been about abolishing a good part law in those reservations, and handing formal powers regarding policing to some shady tribal group to figure out instead.

Obviously people aren't going to be in favour of that sort of thing, no matter their political ideals. Abolishing the law and formally creating mob justice would be one monumentally stupid measure to take, on par with abolishing family law and handing that to radical islamic shariah courts or something similar.

I take it Rubio was part of an unanymous vote on that? I mean, who'd possibly vote for abolishing the justice state in certain areas?

The Gentleman:... and Senator Rubio just tanked his chances at 2016. Two words "water gulp."

I was half paying attention because the party's hand was up his ass so it was nothing new. What's this water gulp?

Looks like his speech was interrupted when he had to walk way to the side in order to get a drink of water. It detracted from his speech, I mean a speech doesn't feel as powerful when it has weird interruptions. He was supposed to blow the president out of the water of course the water sip has been severely overblown mostly because it was funny.

It was a small gaffe at best, but it was a kind of odd moment and reflected just a generally nervous and unnatural speech which is not what you wanna do when you're up against Obama addressing the nation. This was his chance to audition himself for the Leader of the Free World and he kind of choked on it. He might not be such a frontrunner in a few weeks if Bobby Jindal comparisons start popping up.

On a random tangent/clarification nobody cares about. I mentioned in my first post about Rubio's "mexican-ness" which I misspoke on, Rubio is Cuban American, which is a big difference. Not that anyone in politics seems to care since apparently Latinos are all one homogeneous group from one country.

The Gentleman:... and Senator Rubio just tanked his chances at 2016. Two words "water gulp."

I was half paying attention because the party's hand was up his ass so it was nothing new. What's this water gulp?

He took a very visible moment to take a drink of water from a mini bottle of water. It made the speech feel unrehearsed and awkward. At moments, it was outright contradictory ("government won't help you," I benefited from college loans," "My mother is on medicare").

Admittedly, it was probably the best SotU response the GOP has forwarded during the Obama years, but that is more due to the very low bar set by the prior speakers. It felt only like a step above the Jindal response, which I hold as the best up till tonight.

Vizanto:On a random tangent/clarification nobody cares about. I mentioned in my first post about Rubio's "mexican-ness" which I misspoke on, Rubio is Cuban American, which is a big difference. Not that anyone in politics seems to care since apparently Latinos are all one homogeneous group from one country.

Anyway, wow. So immediately we get a new gaffe, a Watergate if you will (yeah, this idiocy of adding "-gate" to everything has now come full circle as far as I'm concerned). So Bobby Jindal is up next, is what I gather from the discussion here?

This is awful. Obama's second term has just started and we're already at that point again where the Republicans keep flipping through possible candidates and with a similar speed they had before the primary decision for 2012. Will we have three and a half years of hearing about the monthly "new frontrunner" then?

Skeleon: So Bobby Jindal is up next, is what I gather from the discussion here?

This is awful. Obama's second term has just started and we're already at that point again where the Republicans keep flipping through possible candidates and with a similar speed they had before the primary decision for 2012. Will we have three and a half years of hearing about the monthly "new frontrunner" then?

That or Chris Christie, god I hope Chris Christie doesn't run.

It was bound to happen, our election cycle is starting before the midterms woohooo.

But here's the thing. It's not a matter of "letting them in the country." They're already here. And they're still coming over. Whether you like it or not, they're here and here to stay.

Many countries are able to maintain their sovereignity and decide for themselves who comes in. I want the same for my country too.

And again, the Republicans don't have to be the enemy here. If they denounce people like Arpaio and Brewer more often and work on more reasonable approaches, they can shake off this racist stigma and take away the barrier standing between them and the millions of socially conservative Latinos. Which, believe it or not, there are many of. And even then, when you're talking about the lives of millions of people, if you aren't willing to put petty politics aside I don't think your mind is clear enough to be approaching the subject. That is never an excuse, and the very thought of playing such games with something like this is just sickening.

Is a Republican demand of enforcement first, Amnesty second an unreasonable approach?

People aren't coming over because they "can," they're coming over because the US legal emigration policies are so strict and things are so bad in Mexico that they are willing to put they and their family's lives in the hands of drug cartels to get here. It would be a lot cheaper and a lot more diplomatic to work with them and open a legitimate route, rather than continuing to give the cartels another method of making money. A wall will not solve the problem, it will only make the cartels more creative, just as the war on drugs only made them more creative in what drugs they brew and how.

This still sounds like you are giving up on the idea that the USA is a sovereign nation and has the right to determin who comes to live here or not. I will not. It's too important.

The important part in that paragraph is background check. In that background check it will more than likely exclude known terrorists and will definitely exclude violent offenders whether they crime was committed here or in Mexico if I had a guess.

What if they're not violent. What if they simply believe in collectivism, and once here, will work to transfer wealth from people that earned it to people that did not. I think we have a right to exclude such people (there are or were rules against allowing people in that were likely to become public burdens).

Gorfias:Is a Republican demand of enforcement first, Amnesty second an unreasonable approach?

Yep, since it would basically continue policies of ruthlessly exploiting immigrants that are supposedly 'illegal'.

Can't first go 'yes, please come here and work for $ 1 an hour without using any social services' and then 'ahmygwad, how come you evil hispanics are here?!'

This is likely why there's no middle ground. I don't want to exploit hispanics. I want them to stay in their country of origin. I don't want banks that lend money to South America protected by USA tax payers either.

Amnesty first is unacceptable as it will lead to the same kind of sucker punch Reagan got.

So, I think Republicans, with or without Rubio are hosed. I think you are going to get Amnesty first and the USA will do a slide into 3rd world hell on Earth territory. After they've destroyed the country, immigrants will find a new target and not come here anymore. Course, my nation will have been scavenged and bankrupted. I can't write I see a way out of it.

Gorfias:Is a Republican demand of enforcement first, Amnesty second an unreasonable approach?

Yep, since it would basically continue policies of ruthlessly exploiting immigrants that are supposedly 'illegal'.

Can't first go 'yes, please come here and work for $ 1 an hour without using any social services' and then 'ahmygwad, how come you evil hispanics are here?!'

This is likely why there's no middle ground. I don't want to exploit hispanics. I want them to stay in their country of origin. I don't want banks that lend money to South America protected by USA tax payers either.

Amnesty first is unacceptable as it will lead to the same kind of sucker punch Reagan got.

So, I think Republicans, with or without Rubio are hosed. I think you are going to get Amnesty first and the USA will do a slide into 3rd world hell on Earth territory. After they've destroyed the country, immigrants will find a new target and not come here anymore. Course, my nation will have been scavenged and bankrupted. I can't write I see a way out of it.

It's a wake-up call. Your standard of living had gone up through the roof while since the 70s your main industry had shifted to finances&services and away from manufacturing and production. It's now harder and harder to find people who will work in manufacturing jobs (I'm also including agriculture here) and will also live by your average standard of living. In order to keep your standard of living where it is, certain industries are subsidized. You want to keep the price of food low, so you hire people who will work for less... as it turns out, very few Americans would go so low to meet this demand, but people coming from the war-torn Mexican neighbor would love to help. You know what's in the USA that isn't in Mexico? Relative safety and security and a general higher standard of living, even if they're living off the grid (working in 'black').

Look at Britain and the Libor scandal. When the financial sector goes for a tumble (as it always does, because, capitalism), they're trying their best to keep it afloat even while making a massive ponzy scheme and cheating nearly all of the world. Same can be said with the USA and its 2008-2009 crash of certain industries. You should have let them fail and see new tycoons and new industries spring up. Instead the government supported the current elites and the price fell on those who did no wrong but hold an American citizenship.

Britain used to be the workshop of the world sustained by its colonies, and then it was the USA... now where is it? China. India. South Korea. Japan. All the way from low-tech lumber to high-tech chips, the industrial centers of the world are shifting to Asia and so will the wealth and influence that comes with it.

Fuck I'm depressed. My continent will soon revert to the backwater it started as. I don't want to return to being a nomad! NO! Leave me alone, Genghis Khan!

edit: The USA invaded Mexico once to try and curtail the influx of refugees during its civil wars (one of many). Could you classify the current situation of lawlessness in Mexico as a civil war? I'm baffled as to why the US keeps bases in Germany while it refuses to help Mexico with its rampant organized crime problem.

The important part in that paragraph is background check. In that background check it will more than likely exclude known terrorists and will definitely exclude violent offenders whether they crime was committed here or in Mexico if I had a guess.

What if they're not violent. What if they simply believe in collectivism, and once here, will work to transfer wealth from people that earned it to people that did not. I think we have a right to exclude such people (there are or were rules against allowing people in that were likely to become public burdens).

So basically we shouldn't let them into our country unless their republican, that is what I understand from your rebuttal... Almost the entirety of the country polled in one wanting higher taxes on the rich. If we're going to deny these people entry into our country then using the same logic we should be throwing majority of our current populace out.

BreakfastMan:That would work if the reservations are part of the regular US. They are not, they have something called "tribal sovereignty", which means they are essentially their own countries with their own governments and laws (to an extent, at least).

So that bill will have been about abolishing a good part law in those reservations, and handing formal powers regarding policing to some shady tribal group to figure out instead.

Obviously people aren't going to be in favour of that sort of thing, no matter their political ideals. Abolishing the law and formally creating mob justice would be one monumentally stupid measure to take, on par with abolishing family law and handing that to radical islamic shariah courts or something similar.

I take it Rubio was part of an unanymous vote on that? I mean, who'd possibly vote for abolishing the justice state in certain areas?

Shady tribal group? Mob justice?

Is that how you think of Native Americans? They're regular people with their own police force that mirrors our's. My friend, what you just said was quite blatantly racist. Might want to think on that.

Why shouldn't they be able to prosecute those who commit crimes against their people on their land, when half the time American courts won't even bother to pursue the case? That's like saying we can't prosecute illegal immigrants who come over here and commit crimes, because technically they're the responsibility of Mexico or Cuba or wherever. Makes no sense.

Gorfias: (there are or were rules against allowing people in that were likely to become public burdens).

So basically we shouldn't let them into our country unless their republican

I worry that people think only Republicans still believe if you want something, you're supposed to earn it. Everyone else believes in Santa Claus.

Before the 1980s Amnesty, I wonder how many people agreed with that sentiment. After that Amnesty, how many think that now? And with the next Amnesty, we can consider the idea of actually working for what you want dead. We'll all starve to death waiting for Santa to care for us.

Gorfias: (there are or were rules against allowing people in that were likely to become public burdens).

So basically we shouldn't let them into our country unless their republican

I worry that people think only Republicans still believe if you want something, you're supposed to earn it. Everyone else believes in Santa Claus.

Before the 1980s Amnesty, I wonder how many people agreed with that sentiment. After that Amnesty, how many think that now? And with the next Amnesty, we can consider the idea of actually working for what you want dead. We'll all starve to death waiting for Santa to care for us.[/quote]

Free market philosophy out of the gutter. You won't see wages go up if there is nobody willing to work for current low wages some immigrants work for. The reason they are hired is not because of greed, but because of necessity. As industries shut down and some move elsewhere (probably to Mexico itself), you will see an attempt from the government to stop this madness by more madness and pulling off more subsidies and incentives.

Had the wages been higher, then the prices for the finished goods would have been higher, and then a few things could have happened - the coin inflates , the government steps in, or quality of life decreases.

The illegal immigrants that come to the USA mostly work in the nastiest jobs imaginable. They don't starve to death waiting for santa to care for them. They gut pigs and pick cabbages. 'Real' American boys and girls serve fast food and clean floors.

So basically we shouldn't let them into our country unless their republican

I worry that people think only Republicans still believe if you want something, you're supposed to earn it. Everyone else believes in Santa Claus.

Before the 1980s Amnesty, I wonder how many people agreed with that sentiment. After that Amnesty, how many think that now? And with the next Amnesty, we can consider the idea of actually working for what you want dead. We'll all starve to death waiting for Santa to care for us.[/quote]

This is why the republicans are losing the latino vote, they say well we can't legalize them because they are going to destroy our republican ideals because that want something for nothing. Do you know what that tells the hispanic community? That you think they are lazy government leaches. You want latinos to actually vote for your party? Then you need to persuade them, people may have a political position but it doesn't mean it can't change, the republican party just keeps shooting itself in the foot in that regard.

So over half of this country that voted for Obama twice are just waiting for santa claus huh? Well how about you take your republican utopia and move out. It's majority rule and no one thinks that you should get something for nothing, everybody believes taxes need to be paid and people on welfare and medicaid shouldn't be "mooching" it's only your party that thinks but letting all these latinos become legal that they'll have to pay obscene benefits.

Now stop claiming his whole something for nothing approach because it's a bullshit excuse and irrelavent to an immigration debate of whether it's right or wrong.

Also as far as amnesty went in the 80's the illegals would have still been here having kids no matter what the bill said and all of those kids would have been american citizens. Your damned if you do damned if you don't however when you don't escalate rhetoric to sheriff Apalatno's levels you stand a greater chance of attracting them so your party at least gets winnable levels.

The Latino vote's most important concern is the economy, so fight the battle of who gets who's vote on that front. You'd get the latino vote and the countries vote if you could manage that.

So basically we shouldn't let them into our country unless their republican

I worry that people think only Republicans still believe if you want something, you're supposed to earn it. Everyone else believes in Santa Claus.

Before the 1980s Amnesty, I wonder how many people agreed with that sentiment. After that Amnesty, how many think that now? And with the next Amnesty, we can consider the idea of actually working for what you want dead. We'll all starve to death waiting for Santa to care for us.

This is why the republicans are losing the latino vote, they say well we can't legalize them because they are going to destroy our republican ideals because that want something for nothing. Do you know what that tells the hispanic community? That you think they are lazy government leaches. You want latinos to actually vote for your party? Then you need to persuade them, people may have a political position but it doesn't mean it can't change, the republican party just keeps shooting itself in the foot in that regard.

So over half of this country that voted for Obama twice are just waiting for santa claus huh? Well how about you take your republican utopia and move out. It's majority rule and no one thinks that you should get something for nothing, everybody believes taxes need to be paid and people on welfare and medicaid shouldn't be "mooching" it's only your party that thinks but letting all these latinos become legal that they'll have to pay obscene benefits.

Now stop claiming his whole something for nothing approach because it's a bullshit excuse and irrelavent to an immigration debate of whether it's right or wrong.

Also as far as amnesty went in the 80's the illegals would have still been here having kids no matter what the bill said and all of those kids would have been american citizens. Your damned if you do damned if you don't however when you don't escalate rhetoric to sheriff Apalatno's levels you stand a greater chance of attracting them so your party at least gets winnable levels.

The Latino vote's most important concern is the economy, so fight the battle of who gets who's vote on that front. You'd get the latino vote and the countries vote if you could manage that.[/quote]It's not a majority. Only around a third of the citizens of the USA eligible to vote voted for Obama.

OP:I think it would be wise for Republicans to strongly consider him as the next candidate for the Republican party. If not for president, then at least for VP. Perhaps Rubio and Chris Christie can run together.

Lilani:They've lost touch with reality. Getting them to admit that illegal immigrants are anything but stains on America is like pulling teeth. Things like the DREAM act only make sense--I mean children who grew up here from infancy know about as much about Mexico as any other kid who grew up in the states. Sending them back there would just be cruel. Only now are they starting to begrudgingly admit that maybe children should be excluded from the wrath of deportation.

No, what would be cruel would be allowing people to profit from their crimes by giving them amnesty. Its also a slap in the face to everybody who's family came here legally and met the requirements to enter this country. As for the children being familiar with the country they came from or where their parents came from, its an appeal to emotion fallacy. Its nothing more than a new take on the idea "but think of the children!".

Immigration: This affects immigrants in general but specifically hispanics. Close the borders down, arizona law a favorite that conservatives across the US want to implement. They want to deport illegal immigrants whose only fault was being here illegally when it shouldn't have been illegal in the first place for them to want work. The rhetoric about jobs being taken and defending the borders because they are being INVADED seen that phrase more than once.

No that's nonsense. It should be illegal for a person to enter the country without the consent of government in charge, and wanting to make money isn't a justification. Now if they were some gay kid from Uganda, it might be justifiable for them to come here illegally and claim political asylum, but claiming that a person is justified coming here illegally because they wanted to make money? No, that's nonsense. America isn't the only country in the world the has job opportunities, if you can find work in your country then you should legally apply to the US or another country.

A good example of why this brand won't go away is Asian and Jewish americans... they voted overwhelmingly for Obama despite having nothing against either party. If anything they should have voted for Romney because of their family ideals but guess what they didn't.

I must admit that I was confused by this, because it seemed like the Republicans were trying to act more friendly to Israel than the Democrats were. I know young Jews might not care about Israel as much, but I would have assumed that the older people would have been more influenced by the strained relationship that Obama and Netanyahu to vote Republican. I guess I was wrong. Can't say much about Asian Americans.

Your correct we can't and I wouldn't suggest that however when we have a million people waiting to get here from mexico and we only give out 50k visas to Mexico a year(one of the highest mind you). 500k a year would fix that problem along with our agricultural one not to mention reduce the amount of illegal immigrants that aren't drug dealers.

Skeleon:Honestly, one of the main causes for illegal immigration will probably never be adressed. It's an easy and very populistic act to put the blame squarely on the illegal immigrants and rile people up for more and more Draconian and big government policies towards them, including the "show me your papers"- and "let's build an electrified fence or a wall"-stuff. This is really more about incentives. Blablahb already mentioned the working conditions for illegals, well. As long as nobody places any severe consequences on the corporations who employ illegals, they will keep coming. As long as there's an incentive for a cheap labour force to cross the borders, a labour force that lacks a lot of the usual rights of workers, nothing will substantially change. But that's against these employers' interests: Not only would it remove their cheap labour and force them to pay people a proper wage, insurance and so on, it would also move them themselves into the crosshairs of actual consequences for breaking the rules. And since these are powerful special interest groups, nobody will actually adress these issues. They'll keep things the same while, every now and then, also using this issue as a populist rallying cry for (and against) particular voter demographics. That's why a lot of policies supposedly aimed at preventing illegal immigration end up doing little to help and actually hurt citizens.

I fully agree with that, employers should be penalized or put in prison for contributing to the issue of illegal immigration. I imagine this wouldn't be as big of a problem if employers stopped employing and exploiting illegal immigrants.

Sonofadiddly:Shady tribal group? Mob justice? Is that how you think of Native Americans?

Maybe you should read my post again, because you obviously missed my point.

You don't abolish the justice state and exchange it for some shady form of non-controlled vigilante force, it's something you just don't do in a modern country. There's a justice system, and it's there for everybody, no exceptions, nobody's above the law, indian or otherwise.

Saying that the Republicans are the "party of old white men" is racist. Saying that Alan West, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Clarence Thomas, (the list goes on for ages) are ALL tokens or Uncle Toms is racist. Democrats basically think that these brown/female Republicans are too stupid to think for themselves. That's racist.

I'm trying to figure out where are all these uncle tom quotes? So I look them up there mostly from black comedians and the occasional black journalist oh and random black people on twitter. However every big reporter that tows the GOP lines has accused Obama of being a muslim or maybe not being born here or being to concerned with the black vote or being even being racist against white people. And Several politicians all through the country.

I don't know if it was what harmonic was talking about, but I do remember hearing that a Black women was getting threats on twitter for not voting for Obama. There was a fair amount of racism in the criticism she received as well, "well your Black and he's Black, so shouldn't you have voted for him?" or "your a traitor to your own people for voting for a Republican". Pretty screwed up stuff to say to a person.

He took a very visible moment to take a drink of water from a mini bottle of water. It made the speech feel unrehearsed and awkward. At moments, it was outright contradictory ("government won't help you," I benefited from college loans," "My mother is on medicare").

Admittedly, it was probably the best SotU response the GOP has forwarded during the Obama years, but that is more due to the very low bar set by the prior speakers. It felt only like a step above the Jindal response, which I hold as the best up till tonight.

People are really grasping for straws and blowing this out of proportion. Its quite pitiful and reminds me of when people got their panties in a twist about Obama bowing to the Japanese emperor. There are plenty of things to criticize Rubio on[1], but a guy having a dry mouth and grabbing a bottle of water isn't one of them.

[1] Personally I don't like what he had to say about the environment and his comments about "opening up" the US natural land for what I can only imagine is a reference to fracking.

Many countries are able to maintain their sovereignity and decide for themselves who comes in. I want the same for my country too.

Nobody is saying open the floodgates and let in every single person that wants to come. All we are saying is that the current barriers to entry are so high, people who want to come legally and be American are being told you don't want them (when you clearly do as migrant workers do loads in the American economy) and so are left with no choice but to pay Cartels to run them across the border - ensuring the Cartel gets all that money that could have gone into the US economy.

Reduce the barriers, make it easier for law abiding people to get into the country and you have more control over who gets in:

If there are 100 people who want to come to America:

70 are perfect examples of migrant workers10 get in legally

That means you have 60 people who wanted to come to America to work who will now jump the border along side the 30 who are 'undesirable' (and would do nothing for America).

If you lower the barriers so that even only another 20-30 'good' immigrants get in and you've a) increased the number of tax payers, who will add more to the economy b)offer actual protection to migrant workers and c) made your job of keeping out illegals much easier as you don't have to deal with as may people.

You still have control if you allow greater immigration, it's not an all or nothing system.

Is a Republican demand of enforcement first, Amnesty second an unreasonable approach?

We are going to help rehabilitate drug users - only after we have sent them to supermax prison for years, ruined their lives and made them nothing but a criminal husk that has no ability to function in polite society or ever hope to be rehabilitated

That's what enforcement before amnesty is - punishing people in such a way that the very purpose of the amnesty would be undermined. I will guarantee one of the main rules of any amnesty would be a clean criminal record, which illegal immigrants by their very definition do not have. The amnesty would be completely pointless because you've put a restriction on it that means nobody can use it.

Instead give people an amnesty then enforce it. You set the amnesty on the condition that you have no criminal record (immigration is exempted) so that only the 'good' illegals can use it. Now they are all legal citizens you can turn all those resources you've been using to find and deport 'good' illegals can now be turned to finding the 'bad' ones.

This still sounds like you are giving up on the idea that the USA is a sovereign nation and has the right to determin who comes to live here or not. I will not. It's too important.

Again, nobody is suggesting an opening of the floodgates but the opposite - building a wall with a big sign saying 'no brown people' is a god awful way of going. As I said, you actually have more control over immigration if you loosen the restrictions as you can see exactly who is coming in, why and where they are going; as it is we just guess and have no idea where illegals end up.

What if they're not violent. What if they simply believe in collectivism, and once here, will work to transfer wealth from people that earned it to people that did not. I think we have a right to exclude such people (there are or were rules against allowing people in that were likely to become public burdens).

"Whaah, those immigrants might not vote the way I like, they shouldn't be allowed in!"

Seriously, that's what you sound like. America is a country with freedom of speech and opinion, people can hold whatever political view they want; if they want a collectivist system and they can vote for it then why shouldn't there be a collectivist system? That's how a democracy works.

What if they hold Libertarian/Anarchist views and want to dismantle the government? That's a more dangerous view in my opinion but I'm not going to ban them from the country for it, that's just petty.

Banning someone for their views (when they do not espouse violence, discrimination or hate speech) is as morally corrupt as banning someone for their country of origin or skin colour.

No, what would be cruel would be allowing people to profit from their crimes by giving them amnesty. Its also a slap in the face to everybody who's family came here legally and met the requirements to enter this country. As for the children being familiar with the country they came from or where their parents came from, its an appeal to emotion fallacy. Its nothing more than a new take on the idea "but think of the children!".

Illegal immigrants come over here in worst conditions possible. Get the shittiest jobs. get process to become legal residents, pay fine and back taxes. Profit?!

Yeah I see where the illegal immigrant population is overwelmingly profit from our INTENSE GENEROSITY.

No that's nonsense. It should be illegal for a person to enter the country without the consent of government in charge, and wanting to make money isn't a justification. Now if they were some gay kid from Uganda, it might be justifiable for them to come here illegally and claim political asylum, but claiming that a person is justified coming here illegally because they wanted to make money? No, that's nonsense. America isn't the only country in the world the has job opportunities, if you can find work in your country then you should legally apply to the US or another country.

The country needs latino migrant workers, we have a strong trading relation with mexico, we have many latinos with ties to families overseas. So why not give them more visa to come over here? Day took our dobs?

I must admit that I was confused by this, because it seemed like the Republicans were trying to act more friendly to Israel than the Democrats were. I know young Jews might not care about Israel as much, but I would have assumed that the older people would have been more influenced by the strained relationship that Obama and Netanyahu to vote Republican. I guess I was wrong. Can't say much about Asian Americans.

Criticizing Israel and Netanyahu does not mean criticizing jewish people which is what i've heard a lot when Obama is critical of the country.

Why should Mexico get special treatment? So what if they want to come here, there are also a lot of Asian people that want to come here, and yet [url=http://www.immig-chicago.com/News/search/2742/]they also have issues with immigration

So amnesty would help asian people, the dream act would help highly skilled asians, and visa reform (which definitely come along with granting more visa to mexican workers) would help.... you guessed it.... asians. I mean Obamas plan is to increase visa based on economic needs so I'd hope congress would do something like that considering how they all talk about immigration reform without giving any specifics besides build the damn fence.

But why do Mexicans get special treatment? Because there are more than 10 times the number of illegal hispanic workers versus illegal asians in this country. When an asian wants to come over here they usually do it the legal way, it's not exactly easy to make it past port authority in the droves mexican workers make it across the border. So those people that come over the legal way get background checked and have to maintain a job, hispanic illegals are by and large coming across the border so they haven't had background checks and aren't pay federal taxes. So why is it so important to stem the tide of illegal immigration from Mexico? Border security purposes, national security purposes, and fiscal security.

What if they're not violent. What if they simply believe in collectivism, and once here, will work to transfer wealth from people that earned it to people that did not. I think we have a right to exclude such people (there are or were rules against allowing people in that were likely to become public burdens).

"Whaah, those immigrants might not vote the way I like, they shouldn't be allowed in!"

Seriously, that's what you sound like. America is a country with freedom of speech and opinion, people can hold whatever political view they want; if they want a collectivist system and they can vote for it then why shouldn't there be a collectivist system? That's how a democracy works.

What if they hold Libertarian/Anarchist views and want to dismantle the government? That's a more dangerous view in my opinion but I'm not going to ban them from the country for it, that's just petty.

Banning someone for their views (when they do not espouse violence, discrimination or hate speech) is as morally corrupt as banning someone for their country of origin or skin colour.

I don't know if it was what harmonic was talking about, but I do remember hearing that a Black women was getting threats on twitter for not voting for Obama. There was a fair amount of racism in the criticism she received as well, "well your Black and he's Black, so shouldn't you have voted for him?" or "your a traitor to your own people for voting for a Republican". Pretty screwed up stuff to say to a person.

EDIT: While not the women I was referring to, but hhere is another case of a Black women(democrat this time) getting harassment because she doesn't go along with the Obama administrations stance. She was also called a "traitor".

So first off, lets look at who are calling these people traitor.

The first instance are black twitters that don't agree with that chick. Which I plainly stated was the case, i mean it's in my quote. Most of those people that tweeted that chick probably weren't old enough to vote and don't represent the democratic party, thank fucking god. Now how many politicians said that chick was a race traitor? None, how many policies do democrats hold that are prejudice against white people? None. So is the democratic party saying uncle tom and traitor all the goddamn time to black voters? No, your cherry picking instances where people that probably aren't even registered to vote attacked this chick.

Second example, she isn't disagreeing with Obama she is going against a women's rights bill supported by democrats. They aren't saying she is a race traitor or even a sex traitor but a traitor to the democratic party.... you do know that is what he was saying right? That democrats are always going around calling black people that vote differently race traitors?

Edit: And concerning the water bottle thing they are playing with him, nobody actually thinks a water bottle grab is gonna lose him the presidency. His speech was already lackluster and the way I've heard it portrayed has been playful so far or that the water bottle was symbolic of how average the speech was. Remember this was his shot to throw it down on Obama, and in my opinion, and many other people's opinion he didn't get it done not because of the water incident but because his speech wasn't all that spectacular.